Elliott C. Back: Internet & Technology

Normally I’d be uninterested in the story of how three New Zealand teen allegedly murdered 14 year old John Hapeta in New Zealand. According to the New Zealand Herald, “Two men charged with the murder of 14-year-old John Hapeta allegedly armed themselves with a revolver-style pistol and a claw hammer when they went to his house looking for drugs and cash. John Hapeta was celebrating his friend’s 15th birthday at his home in Justamere Place, Weymouth, when the attack occurred. Police allege the three went to John’s home on August 12 with the intention of robbing what they thought was a ‘tinnie’ house. The draft police summary of facts said Tumata and Williams pulled black bandannas over their faces and walked up to the house, confronted a man and allegedly shouted, ‘Where’s the drugs, where’s the drugs?’”

The story now becomes interesting when Judge David Harvey bans online mention of the accused’s names. No one is sure why print media (which is searchable, through interfaces like Lexis Nexus) gets special treatment here. I certainly disagree, and I’m free to publish whatever I’d like, as a journalist, including the names of the accused.

Anytime anyone wants to suppress totally free speech, I say RESIST!!

There’s now a serious reason not to vote for Barack Hussein Obama in the upcoming election. On the issue of illegal wiretapping he voted for HR 6304, which grants retroactive immunity from prosecution to telephone companies who cooperated with Bush’s presidency to illegally spy on millions of Americans.

Illegal Wiretaps We Can Believe In

We are all disappointed, Obama. TechCrunch, in Barack Obama Breaks Promise, Flip Flops, and supports Telco’s, says it best:

In voting for the bill, Obama acted in direct contradiction to his earlier statements. In 2007 Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman, said “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

Update: BoingBoing just posted the same thing a little late to the game!

A choice many young professionals make on moving to NYC, NY to work for one profitable company or another is where they should live. The choices are typically Manhattan, Queens Brooklyn, another borough of NY such as Staten Island, or New Jersey. Weighing the neighborhood, rent, social scene, and proximity to fast public transportation are not the only choices you should consider; the tax rate of NY and NJ are worth thinking about. In fact, New York City is one of the few cities in America to charge a unique city-tax for residents in any of its boroughs.

Our young example is a 23 year old woman working for Citigroup. As an entry level programmer working in straight-through-processing, she might make $100,000 a year in taxable income (it’s a round number, not a real one). She is single, and will not be claimed as a dependent. Now let’s run the numbers for NY:

- $100,000 taxable income
- 6.85% state tax
- $1,706 plus 3.648% of excess over $50,000 NYC tax
- $7,500 standard deduction

So the total NY taxes she’ll pay is ($100,000 – $7,500) * .0685 + $1,706 + ($50,000 – $7,500 ) * .03648, which is $9,593 in taxes to New York. The New Jersey tax works slightly differently:

- $100,000 taxable income
- 6.37% state tax
- $2,126 post-tax deduction

In NJ, she will pay the following taxes: $100,000 * .0637 – $2,126, which is $4,244 in taxes to New Jersey. This is $5,369 in taxes she gets to keep in her pocket, an extra $450 post-tax dollars a month of savings. Please note that I am not a tax accountant or lawyer, so these figures should not be taken as advice; they may very well be wrong. But to me, they provide real evidence that living in NJ has substantial tax benefit.